this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
427 points (98.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6659 readers
437 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Probably depends entirely on the aerodynamics involved, if we're assuming it's approaching as an aircraft. This is kind of an intermediate range, and it has shitty ballistics, so the energy to just get it off the ground will be dwarfed.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is NCD, ignoring air resistance or at very minimum using wildly incorrect values is expected

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Shit. So I should have gone with the "oversized hyperloop" idea and just said zero. My bad.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

So I did some math, and I'm assuming we need about 1/3 of LEO velocity, it would take 707 SpaceX Starship launches to throw USS Abraham Lincoln to Kremlin.

This is of course ignoring air resistance, other physics and common sense + we're assuming spherical aircraft carrier

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago

Okay this might get little bit too credible, but if we were to disassemble the aircraft carrier in 150t pieces and launch to low earth orbit, assemble it again there and then use 1 more starship to slow it's velocity to deorbit and drop it to target, we would need little over 2100 starship launches. Little bit more if we cover the ship with heat tiles to protect during re-entry.

Honestly this seems well worth it considering how much cooler it would be than the usual designs for kinetic orbital strike.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Did you get the 1/3 number somewhere? St. Petersburg is on the Baltic, and Moscow is only like 600 km away.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I can't stop.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah I did some research and calculations, and pulled that number out of my ass

Edit:

Based on this guys math which I trust as much as anything in this community, you'd need 9522km/h velocity, which is pretty damn close to 1/3 LEO velocity (28000km/h).

This makes my ass scientifically proven

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 4 points 3 months ago

I did some math once. The hangover the next day was incalculable.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would say a rock is a better approximation than an aircraft lmao

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If you throw it, and it doesn't go into space, a rock is an aircraft.

Source: Am an airforce geologist. ^/s^

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 5 points 3 months ago

Remember your college physics: First Rule - we can ignore aerodynamics.